NL2
NL5
NL8
NL10
NL20
NL30
NL50

The addition of these new game buy ins are not to make moving up levels easier imo. The way they were would allow players to move up reasonably imo. The real reason imo is this gives recreationals one more interval level to move up and thus their meager BR will be taken in rake by pokerstars before it moves up the ladder and feeds the players that actually play for a living.

The battle for recreationals money is between Pokerstars and winning players. These new intervals just allow Pokerstars the opportunity to take more of the rake before it gets funneled up the stakes to where people who play for a living have a chance to get a share.

I'm open to any new stakes between 10 and 25nl and then 25nl and 50nl just to break up the moving up, possibly even something between 50 and 100?

I would be surprised if Pokerstars would enact the changes people are suggesting, regardless of how good they are (such as HurtKs suggestion)...

Assuming stars want to keep the rough framework of micro-stakes they have, it seems most sensible to add 8nl (not 6) and 16nl.

It would also be nice to have something like 36nl, but that might be for another time (next year?).

Why do you feel you need these levels?

would you care to enlighten me why anyone in the micro forums should care about these ..well ..weird thoughts?

What about adding some smaller stake HU tables (0.05/0.10 or 0.10/0.25)?
I bet lots of micro stakes players would love that.

The rake would be enormous like 20bb/100

http://www.pokertableratings.com/pok...imit-hold%27em

too much rake for making it viable, also fish will lose money quickier and player pool is divided wich obv sucks. NO TO THIS

Wouldn't that depend on the rake structure to be defined for those games?

well obviously but considering that stars is trying to mimic the "industry estandard" chances are that rake is too high and games are not viable.

+1. I don't see the point of adding NL6. It is too much similar to NL5.
On the other hand NL16 and NL36 that would be great.

As for the HU tables I don't think that the player pool would be divided. Mainly it'll be players who play reg and turbo HU SnGs. I think the only problem is with rake being too high.

It doesn't affect micro's and your point is fair.

But if you agree with me that Pokerstars is looking to take an even higher percentage of money from the producers (depositing losing players), then it should be of no surprise to you why Microstakes have historically been raped beyond belief in terms of rake.

Id rather see pstars improve the effect of rake on micro players well before trying to add extra stake levels in micros

Deep+ante tables are great. Whales love them, and deep play is something that really good players excel at. At 100NL, a deep+ante orbit costs you $2.40 ($1BB, .50SB and 9x.10). Without antes, it would be $1.50 per orbit. A standard 200NL game would be $3.00 per orbit. A 200NL deep+ante game is $4.80 per orbit ($2BB, $1BB, and 9x.20).

Cost per orbit
$1.50 (100NL no ante)
$2.40 (100NL ante)
$3.00 (200NL no ante)
$4.80 (200NL ante)

The addition of antes make really great middle tiers of stakes. I believe ante tables provide enough of a difference between stakes to not require 6NL. When you factor in how badly people play deep, and how fish love ante action... just start and play in more ante tables.

this.

+1
It's also aesthetically pleasing (to me at least)

Getting 0.007vpp/hand at nl2 and im one of the loosest player at fr. Gonna try nl5 to see if it's as much of a joke.

That's over 100k hands a month just to reach the first vip level. According to their calculoltor it should be 30k.

This looks good, nl6 doesnt make alot of sense given how similar it is to nl5

the change from 2nl to 5nl is so small that adding 4nl & 6nl and taking out 5nl is pointless

imo

2nl-5nl-10nl-16nl-25nl etc etc or 2nl-5nl-10nl-20nl-30nl-50nl etc

& yes i think taking away 2nl might make recreational players unhappy & we cannot be selfish as stars should be trying to make their clientele happy & offer a wide variety of stakes for them


p.s point of my post is that the only additional stake to be added that would facilitate regs potentially moving up faster would be between 10nl & 50nl & either adding 16nl or eliminating 25nl and adding 20 & 30nl.. which is the point of this change no?...

also is it possible to add pot limit tables for 2-10nl?

+1 if all rake were equal. This is my post I was referring to before:

I'm going to try to figure out if the new structure mitigates that but I don't know why you would want to even take any step in that direction in the first place.

Given the choice how many people would choose:
a) Be able to move up "faster"/"reasonably" while money is raked away faster.
b) Have more deposit money move up the ladder before being raked away.

I would definitely be choosing b. Take a look at how outlandish the rake/100 is in bb/100 and how much it affects winrates in the micros due to these meaningless rake caps which have been "lowered" but are still useless because we never hit them. Now they want to add another effectively uncapped stake to the mix. Thankfully only one made it through and that one needs to go. Some people are going to see this as a lower rung to get to on the ladder to make the jump to 25NL smaller. I see it as lengthening the rake-trap machine.

Again if given the choice, I would pick higher winrates via meaningful rake cap and/or filtering players up through removing stakes, which would help us move up faster logicially.
Not adding stakes to move bad players down and further lowering winrates at 25NL+ for this abstract notion of moving winners up reasonably.
Therefore to me the old status quo was definitely better than the new lobby since it has one less stake in it.

interesting logic. bigger gaps (in stakes) help players move up, smaller gaps push players down. is there a chance to keep it as simple as: smaller gaps make it easier to get buy-in for next stake?

Why are you deciding there's an ultimatum? If stars were going to give caps that meant something they would have already. We should keep begging for improvements but why can't they include reductions for 16nl or other possible buy in structures?

6NL just seems pointlessly close to 5NL to me. I guess it would be good for me personally because it might vaccuum up some of the better 5NL players, but I don't see any objective player benefit from it.

Canning 2NL would be awesome for forcing the maniacs to player higher stakes but it might affect Stars traffic adversely. Maybe they would move to other poker sites.

I agree with this.

I think a lot of people forget that the lowest limits are the most popular games on Stars by quite a bit. NL2 for instance consistently gets a lot more traffic than any other limit on Stars. Go to www.pokerscout.com to see for yourself.

I think they should do everything they can to cater to the massive number of people who want to play these games and make it as easy as possible for them to move up. Win/Win for everybody.